Last verified: 18 June 2026
On the morning of 1 July 2024, every police station in India woke up to a different rulebook. The Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act, the three statutes that had governed Indian criminal justice for over a century, stood replaced. In their place came the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The section numbers a generation of lawyers had memorised, 302 for murder, 420 for cheating, 154 for an FIR, were gone overnight.
But one question survived the changeover untouched, because it decides what happens in the very first minutes after a crime is reported. Can the police act on this complaint right now, on their own, or do they have to go to a magistrate first? That single question is the line between cognizable and non-cognizable offences, and it still sits at the heart of Indian criminal procedure.
Here’s the thing most people get wrong. They assume the distinction lives in the new penal code, the BNS, because that’s the law everyone has heard of. It doesn’t. The BNS only tells you what counts as a crime. Whether a given crime is cognizable or non-cognizable is decided by the procedural code, the BNSS, in a part of it almost nobody reads: the First Schedule. Get that wrong, and you’ll look for an answer in the wrong statute every single time.
Consider what this means for an ordinary person. Under the new statutory recognition of the Zero FIR, someone whose pocket was picked in Pune while travelling from Patna can now walk into any police station in the country and have a cognizable complaint registered, regardless of where the offence happened. The officer can’t turn them away for jurisdiction. That’s a concrete gain the old framework only promised through case law and circulars. Now it sits in the bare text of the BNSS.
For a law student relearning the codes, a complainant fighting to get an FIR registered, or someone who has just been accused and wants to know whether the police can show up at their door without a warrant, this classification is where everything starts. So let’s pin it down properly, under the new law, with the right sections.
A cognizable offence is one in which the police can register an FIR, begin investigation, and arrest the accused without a warrant or a magistrate’s prior permission (Section 2(1)(g) of the BNSS, 2023). A non-cognizable offence is one in which the police cannot arrest without a warrant and need a magistrate’s order to investigate (Section 2(1)(o) of the BNSS, 2023).
What follows is the full picture: what each term means under the new codes, where the classification actually lives, the step-by-step procedure for each category, how the old IPC and CrPC sections map onto the BNS and BNSS, a worked list of examples, and the case law that still controls how an FIR gets registered.
What are cognizable and non-cognizable offences under the BNS?
Why does this distinction matter before anything else in a criminal case? Because it answers the first practical question after a crime: who can do what, and how fast. A cognizable offence triggers immediate police power. A non-cognizable offence holds that power back until a court signs off. Everything downstream, the FIR, the arrest, the investigation, flows from which box the offence falls into.
The definitions sit in the very first operative section of the procedural code. Under Section 2(1)(g) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, a “cognizable offence” means an offence for which a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law, arrest without a warrant. Section 2(1)(o) defines a “non-cognizable offence” as one for which a police officer has no authority to arrest without a warrant. Notice that both definitions are built around a single power: arrest without warrant. That is the litmus test, and we’ll come back to it.
Cognizable offence: what the police can do
In a cognizable case, the police don’t wait for permission. They can record a First Information Report under Section 173 of the BNSS, start investigating under Section 175, and arrest the suspect without first approaching a magistrate. These tend to be the serious offences: murder, rape, kidnapping, robbery, dacoity. The logic is straightforward. When a grave crime is in the air, the law wants the State to move before evidence vanishes or the accused absconds.
Non-cognizable offence: the warrant requirement
A non-cognizable offence works the opposite way. Here the police can’t arrest without a warrant, and they can’t even begin a formal investigation until a magistrate orders it under Section 174 of the BNSS. Think of the typically less grave wrongs: defamation, public nuisance, simple hurt. The reasoning is that these often involve private disputes where the State shouldn’t barge in with the full machinery of arrest and investigation unless a court has applied its mind first.
A common question people raise is whether “non-cognizable” means the police will do nothing. It doesn’t. The officer still records the information, enters it in the station diary, and points the complainant towards the magistrate. The police just can’t act unilaterally.
The BNS defines the offence; the BNSS classifies it
Now, here’s where it gets interesting, and where almost every explainer online stumbles. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is the penal code. It defines what a crime is and what punishment it carries. Murder is Section 103 of the BNS; theft is Section 303. But the BNS doesn’t tell you whether murder is cognizable. That label comes from the BNSS, the procedural code, in its First Schedule.
So when someone searches for “cognizable offences under the BNS,” the honest answer is that the BNS gives you the offence and the BNSS gives you the classification. The two codes work as a pair. Keep them straight and the rest falls into place. (Get them mixed up, and you’ll keep hunting for procedure inside a penal statute that doesn’t carry it.)
This pairing isn’t new in spirit. The old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 did exactly the same thing through its own First Schedule, and the cognizable/non-cognizable distinction itself goes back to the CrPC of 1898. What changed on 1 July 2024 wasn’t the architecture. It was the section numbers, and a handful of genuinely new rules layered on top.
Where the classification lives: the BNSS First Schedule
If the classification isn’t in the BNS, where exactly do you look it up? The answer is a table at the back of the BNSS that most readers skip entirely. Official copies of the procedural code carry it under the heading “The First Schedule: Classification of Offences.” It is the single most useful page in the whole code for anyone trying to figure out what the police can do.
How to read the First Schedule
The First Schedule is laid out in two parts. The first part lists offences under the BNS itself, section by section. For each one, it tells you four things across four columns: whether the offence is cognizable or non-cognizable, whether it is bailable or non-bailable, what the punishment is, and which court can try it. The second part does the same job for offences under other laws, the special statutes outside the penal code.
So to classify any BNS offence, you find its section number in the first part and read across. Section 103 (murder)? Cognizable, non-bailable, triable by the Court of Session. Section 356 (defamation)? Non-cognizable, bailable, compoundable. You don’t guess from the seriousness of the crime. You read the row.
The litmus test, and why bail is a separate question
The clearest way to remember the core distinction is the arrest test the definitions themselves use: in a cognizable offence a police officer may arrest without a warrant; in a non-cognizable offence the officer may not. That’s it. The official First Schedule note states the rule in almost those exact words.
But watch out for a trap that catches even careful readers. Cognizable does not automatically mean non-bailable. They are independent labels in independent columns. A cognizable offence can be bailable or non-bailable; a non-cognizable offence is usually bailable. We see this confusion constantly: people assume that because the police can arrest without a warrant, bail must be hard. Not so. The classification that controls arrest is one thing; the classification that controls bail is another. If you want the second half of that picture, our explainer on bailable and non-bailable offences walks through it.
The default rule for offences under other laws
What about a crime created by some special statute, say a food safety law or a local regulatory act, that doesn’t spell out its own classification? The second part of the First Schedule supplies a default, carried over largely unchanged from the CrPC. As a general rule, if such an offence is punishable with imprisonment of less than three years or with fine only, it is treated as non-cognizable and bailable; if it is punishable with three years or more, it tends to be cognizable. The three-year mark is the rough dividing line the system keeps returning to, and you’ll see it again the moment we get to FIR procedure.
Cognizable vs non-cognizable: the key differences
When you strip away the detail, what actually separates these two categories on the ground? Three things matter most: whether the police can arrest without a warrant, whether they must register an FIR, and who controls the start of the investigation. The table below lays the full comparison side by side; the prose after it unpacks the parts that trip people up.
| Feature | Cognizable offence | Non-cognizable offence |
|---|---|---|
| Defining section (BNSS) | Section 2(1)(g) | Section 2(1)(o) |
| Arrest without warrant | Permitted | Not permitted |
| FIR registration | Mandatory under Section 173(1) (subject to the Section 173(3) enquiry) | No FIR; entry in station diary under Section 174 |
| Who can start investigation | Police, on their own (Section 175) | Only on a magistrate’s order (Section 174) |
| Seriousness (general tendency) | More serious; often 3 years or more | Usually less serious; often under 3 years |
| Bail (general tendency) | Bailable or non-bailable, depends on the offence | Usually bailable |
| Typical examples | Murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, theft | Defamation, public nuisance, simple hurt |
Seriousness and the three-year line
There’s a rough correlation between seriousness and classification, but it’s a tendency, not a rule. Most cognizable offences are the graver ones because the law wants the police to respond fast. Most non-cognizable offences are minor. Yet the only way to be certain is the First Schedule, because the legislature has made deliberate choices that don’t always track punishment length. Don’t reason from “this feels serious” to “this must be cognizable.” Reason from the row.
FIR versus a non-cognizable entry: what actually gets recorded
People often ask what the difference is between an FIR and an “NC.” When you report a cognizable offence, the police record a First Information Report, a formal document that sets the criminal law in motion and obliges the police to investigate. When you report a non-cognizable offence, the police make an entry in their daily diary and refer you to the magistrate; no FIR is registered and no investigation begins until the court orders it. The first is an engine starting. The second is a note in a logbook, pending a judge’s green light.
Procedure for cognizable offences under the BNSS
What happens, step by step, when you walk into a police station to report a serious crime under the new code? This is where the BNSS made its most consequential changes, so it’s worth slowing down. The procedure runs from the FIR, through a new pre-FIR enquiry option, into investigation and arrest, with two fresh safeguards bolted on for the gravest cases.
FIR registration under Section 173(1), and the new Zero FIR and e-FIR
Section 173(1) of the BNSS carries forward the old rule that information about a cognizable offence must be reduced to writing and registered as an FIR. But it modernises how that information can reach the police. Information can now be given orally or by electronic communication. An FIR filed electronically, an e-FIR, must be signed by the informant within three days to be formally taken on record. This is a real shift from the old days of physically queuing at a station.
The BNSS also gives the Zero FIR statutory teeth. A Zero FIR can be registered at any police station regardless of where the offence took place, after which it is transferred to the station with territorial jurisdiction. Earlier this rested on Supreme Court directions and executive circulars; now it sits in the bare statute. If you want the granular walkthrough, we’ve covered how to file an FIR under Section 173 BNSS and the mechanics of FIR registration under the BNSS in dedicated posts.
You can see this machinery moving in real time. In May 2025, the Ministry of Home Affairs, through the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre, rolled out an e-Zero FIR facility under which cyber-financial-fraud complaints above a set threshold reported on the national portal or the 1930 helpline are automatically converted into a Zero FIR. That’s the cognizable-offence FIR process, the one we’re describing, being automated at scale.
The Section 173(3) preliminary enquiry: the biggest change
Here’s the genuinely new rule, and the one most explainers miss. Under Section 173(3) of the BNSS, for a cognizable offence that is punishable with imprisonment of three years or more but less than seven years, the officer in charge may, with the prior approval of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, conduct a preliminary enquiry within fourteen days to decide whether a prima facie case exists, before registering an FIR. Alternatively, if a prima facie case is already clear, the officer can proceed straight to investigation.
Why does this matter so much? Because for decades the rule was simple: cognizable offence disclosed, FIR registered, no discretion. Section 173(3) carves a discretionary pause into that for the three-to-seven-year band. Supporters say it filters out frivolous and malicious complaints before they brand someone an accused. Critics worry it hands the police a gate to delay or deny registration in exactly the cases where speed matters. The practical reality is that both effects are now possible, and which one dominates will depend on how honestly the fourteen-day window is used.
A fair warning for anyone relying on this: the preliminary enquiry is an exception, not the default. If the offence is punishable with seven years or more, Section 173(3) doesn’t apply and the FIR mandate is full force.
Investigation and arrest: power, but not a blank cheque
Once an FIR is registered, Section 175 of the BNSS empowers the police to investigate a cognizable offence without any order from a magistrate. They can examine witnesses, collect evidence, and, crucially, arrest without a warrant. That arrest power is the defining feature of a cognizable offence.
But “can arrest” has never meant “must arrest,” and the new code keeps that restraint alive. The arrest provisions in Section 35 of the BNSS, which replace the old Section 41 of the CrPC, require the police to justify the necessity of an arrest rather than make it routine, particularly for offences punishable with less than seven years. This codifies the discipline the Supreme Court demanded in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, where the Court held that arrest in such cases should be the exception, backed by recorded reasons, not the reflex. iPleaders has a detailed case study of the Arnesh Kumar guidelines if you want the full reasoning.
Two new safeguards: forensics and the ninety-day update
The BNSS adds two features the CrPC never had, both aimed at serious cognizable cases. First, under Section 176(3), for offences punishable with seven years or more, a forensic expert is required to visit the crime scene and collect evidence, with the process videographed (subject to a phased rollout as States build forensic capacity). Second, the new code builds in transparency for victims: the police are required to keep the informant or victim updated on the progress of the investigation, including within ninety days. For complainants who, under the old system, often heard nothing for months, that’s a meaningful change.
After the investigation comes the trial, and the sequence of steps that follows the chargesheet is its own subject. We’ve mapped the full arc in our guide to the stages of a criminal trial under the BNSS.
Procedure for non-cognizable offences under the BNSS
So what changes when the offence is non-cognizable? Almost the entire opening sequence. The police lose their power to act on their own, and a magistrate steps into the gap. Understanding this branch matters, because a great many everyday disputes, neighbour quarrels, minor assaults, defamation, fall here, and people are routinely confused about why the police “won’t do anything.”
Reporting a non-cognizable offence: the diary entry
When information about a non-cognizable offence reaches a police station, Section 174 of the BNSS requires the officer to enter the substance of it in the station diary (or the prescribed book) and then refer the informant to the magistrate. No FIR is registered. The officer isn’t being obstructive; the law simply forbids unilateral police action here.
This is the source of a frequent grievance you’ll see on legal forums: “I went to the police and they just wrote it down and sent me to court.” That diary entry is exactly what Section 174 contemplates. The remedy isn’t to demand an FIR the police can’t legally register; it’s to approach the magistrate.
A magistrate’s permission to investigate
Can the police never investigate a non-cognizable offence? They can, but only on a magistrate’s order. Section 174 of the BNSS provides that no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a magistrate having power to try the case. Once that order comes, the officer can exercise the same investigative powers as in a cognizable case, except the power to arrest without a warrant. The magistrate, in other words, is the gatekeeper the legislature has deliberately placed in front of police power for the less grave offences.
When a case mixes cognizable and non-cognizable offences
Here’s a wrinkle that catches people out. What if a single incident involves two or more offences, and at least one of them is cognizable? In that situation, Section 174(4) of the BNSS provides that the case is treated as cognizable, even though the other offences, taken alone, would be non-cognizable. In practice this means a complaint that bundles a cognizable offence with a non-cognizable one unlocks the full police machinery for the whole case. It’s a small clause with large consequences, and it’s exactly the kind of thing a careful complaint can be drafted around.
From IPC and CrPC to BNS and BNSS: what changed
If you trained on the old codes, what do you actually need to relearn? Less than you might fear, and more than the headlines suggest. The skeleton is the same; the numbers and a few rules are not. The two tables below give you the map, and the discussion after separates what’s genuinely new from what was simply renumbered.
Definitions and procedure mapping
| Concept | Old (CrPC, 1973) | New (BNSS, 2023) |
|---|---|---|
| Cognizable offence (definition) | Section 2(c) | Section 2(1)(g) |
| Non-cognizable offence (definition) | Section 2(l) | Section 2(1)(o) |
| FIR in a cognizable case | Section 154 | Section 173 |
| Information in a non-cognizable case | Section 155 | Section 174 |
| Police power to investigate a cognizable case | Section 156 | Section 175 |
| Arrest by police | Section 41 / 41A | Section 35 |
Offence-section mapping for common crimes
| Offence | Old (IPC, 1860) | New (BNS, 2023) |
|---|---|---|
| Murder | Section 302 | Section 103 |
| Culpable homicide not amounting to murder | Section 304 | Section 105 |
| Theft | Section 379 | Section 303 |
| Rape | Section 376 | Section 64 |
| Cheating | Section 420 | Section 318 |
| Defamation | Section 499 / 500 | Section 356 |
What’s genuinely new versus simply renumbered
Strip it down and three things are actually new. The Section 173(3) preliminary enquiry for the three-to-seven-year band did not exist under the CrPC. The statutory recognition of the Zero FIR and the e-FIR is new, where before these lived in case law and circulars. And the time-bound, forensics-backed investigation, mandatory crime-scene forensics for grave offences and progress updates to victims, has no clean CrPC ancestor. Everything else, the definitions, the arrest test, the magistrate’s gatekeeping role for non-cognizable cases, is the old logic in new clothing. For roughly fifty years the CrPC framework was procedurally stable; 2024 was the first wholesale rewrite, and it kept far more than it discarded.
Examples: which offences are cognizable and which are non-cognizable
Definitions are one thing; a working list is another. Which everyday offences fall on each side, and what are their BNS section numbers? Below is a high-confidence list. One caution before you use it: the BNS section number is fixed, but the cognizable/non-cognizable label always traces back to the BNSS First Schedule, so for anything borderline, check the row rather than trusting a memory aid.
Common cognizable offences (with BNS sections)
These are offences where the police can register an FIR and arrest without a warrant:
- Murder, Section 103 of the BNS
- Culpable homicide not amounting to murder, Section 105
- Attempt to murder, Section 109
- Rape, Section 64
- Kidnapping, Section 137; kidnapping for ransom, Section 140
- Robbery, Section 309; dacoity, Section 310
- Theft, Section 303
- Criminal breach of trust, Section 316
- Grievous hurt, Section 117
Common non-cognizable offences (with BNS sections)
These are offences where the police cannot arrest without a warrant and need a magistrate’s order to investigate:
- Defamation, Section 356 of the BNS
- Public nuisance, Section 270
- Voluntarily causing (simple) hurt, Section 115
- Assault or use of criminal force, Section 131
The grey zone: classification depends on the sub-section
Not every offence sits neatly on one side. Several, forgery, criminal intimidation, mischief, and certain forms of cheating, split across cognizable and non-cognizable depending on the exact sub-section and the gravity involved. A simple form may be non-cognizable while an aggravated form of the same wrong is cognizable. This is precisely where reasoning from instinct fails. The mistake we see most often is someone confidently labelling “forgery” as one thing, when the First Schedule actually assigns different labels to different forgery offences. When in doubt, read the specific section’s row. Don’t generalise from the name of the crime.
Landmark judgments on FIR registration and cognizable offences
Do the old Supreme Court rulings still matter now that the CrPC is gone? Very much so. The new code re-enacts the same core provisions, so the judicial interpretation built around them largely carries over, and a fresh 2025 ruling has already begun reading the new Section 173(3). Four cases anchor this area.
The mandatory FIR rule
The foundational authority is Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1. A Constitution Bench held that registration of an FIR is mandatory under the old Section 154 of the CrPC if the information discloses a cognizable offence, and that the police have no discretion to refuse. The Court did allow a narrow preliminary enquiry in limited categories, matrimonial and family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence, corruption cases, and cases of abnormal delay, but capped that enquiry at seven days. Since Section 173(1) of the BNSS re-enacts the same mandatory-registration rule, the Lalita Kumari principle continues to govern.
Limits on police action, and quashing
The second pillar is State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. The Supreme Court laid down seven categories of cases in which an FIR or criminal proceeding can be quashed at the threshold as an abuse of process, for instance, where the allegations, even taken at face value, don’t make out an offence. The flip side of the same ruling is just as important: where a complaint does disclose a cognizable offence, the police must register and investigate. Bhajan Lal is the case both complainants and the accused reach for, depending on which way the facts cut.
Arrest is not automatic
We’ve already met the third case in the procedure section, but it belongs here too. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the Court restrained the reflexive use of arrest in cognizable cases punishable with less than seven years, insisting on recorded reasons and necessity. The principle now finds statutory shape in Section 35 of the BNSS. The takeaway: a cognizable offence gives the police the power to arrest without a warrant, but the Constitution and the code both demand that the power be used with judgment.
The first reading of Section 173(3)
And now the freshest authority, the one no older explainer can have. In Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 INSC 410, decided on 28 March 2025, the Supreme Court read Section 173(3) for the first time. It held that Section 173(3) is an exception to the general mandatory-FIR rule in Section 173(1), and that where an alleged offence relates to speech and falls within the reasonable restrictions of Article 19(2) of the Constitution, it is appropriate for the police to conduct a preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) before registering an FIR. The Court’s reasoning is summarised well in this analysis of the ruling.
There’s a tension worth flagging here, because it’s where the next round of litigation will land. Lalita Kumari capped the preliminary enquiry at seven days; Section 173(3) of the BNSS allows fourteen. The statute and the old precedent point to different windows. Early signals suggest High Courts will have to reconcile them, and practitioners expect the Supreme Court to revisit the question as Section 173(3) matures. Quietly, this is a softening of the bright-line FIR mandate that Lalita Kumari built, and most readers haven’t registered the shift yet.
What the classification means in practice
Step back from the sections for a moment. Why should any of this matter to a person who isn’t a lawyer? Because the cognizable/non-cognizable line decides, in the first hour, what the State can do to you or for you. And the scale is not abstract: the National Crime Records Bureau’s “Crime in India 2022” report recorded over 5.8 million cognizable crimes in a single year. This classification touches millions of cases annually.
For complainants and victims
If your grievance is a cognizable offence, the police must register an FIR (subject only to the narrow Section 173(3) enquiry), and refusal is itself a wrong. So what can you do if they refuse? The BNSS preserves the escalation route: you can send the substance of the information in writing to the Superintendent of Police, and beyond that, approach a magistrate, who can direct an investigation under Section 175(3). The classification, in short, puts the law on your side. Knowing your offence is cognizable is knowing the police aren’t allowed to turn you away.
For the accused
If you’re on the receiving end, the same label tells you your exposure. A cognizable offence means the police can arrest without a warrant, so the practical questions become whether the offence is bailable and whether anticipatory bail is worth seeking. The Arnesh Kumar discipline and Section 35 of the BNSS are your shield against a needless arrest in the lower-punishment band, but they’re safeguards, not guarantees. Knowing the classification early lets you prepare rather than react.
For drafting and advising
For anyone in practice, there’s a habit to update. The instinct to glance at an IPC marginal note to gauge whether the police can act now produces wrong answers, because the IPC is repealed and the classification lives in the BNSS First Schedule. The better approach, in our view, is to check the First Schedule row for every offence you cite, every time, until the new numbers are second nature. This is exactly the kind of procedural fluency that LawSikho’s Certificate Course in Advanced Criminal Litigation, Trial Advocacy and New Criminal Laws drills through real exercises, from FIR to arrest to bail under the new codes.
Common mistakes and misconceptions
What do people get wrong about this topic, again and again? A handful of errors account for most of the confusion, and each one is easy to fix once you’ve seen it named.
The first is assuming the classification lives in the BNS. It doesn’t. The BNS defines the offence; the BNSS First Schedule classifies it as cognizable or non-cognizable. Search for the procedure in the penal code and you’ll come up empty every time.
The second is treating “cognizable” as a synonym for “non-bailable.” They’re separate columns in the First Schedule for a reason. A cognizable offence can be bailable, and many are. The arrest-without-warrant power says nothing, by itself, about whether bail will be easy.
The third pair pulls in opposite directions but is equally wrong: “the police can always refuse to register my FIR” and “the police must always arrest.” Neither holds. For a cognizable offence the FIR is mandatory under Section 173(1) (with only the narrow Section 173(3) enquiry as an exception), so refusal is unlawful. And arrest, even where permitted, must clear the necessity test in Section 35 of the BNSS and the Arnesh Kumar standard. Power and obligation are not the same thing, and the new code is careful to keep them apart.
Frequently asked questions
What is a cognizable offence under the BNSS?
A cognizable offence is one in which a police officer can register an FIR, investigate, and arrest the accused without a warrant or a magistrate’s prior permission. The definition is in Section 2(1)(g) of the BNSS, 2023, and the offence-by-offence classification is in the First Schedule. These are usually the more serious crimes, such as murder, rape, and robbery.
What is a non-cognizable offence?
A non-cognizable offence is one in which the police cannot arrest without a warrant and cannot investigate without a magistrate’s order, under Section 2(1)(o) of the BNSS. The police record the information in the station diary and refer the complainant to the magistrate. Defamation and public nuisance are common examples.
Which sections of the BNSS define cognizable and non-cognizable offences?
Section 2(1)(g) defines a cognizable offence and Section 2(1)(o) defines a non-cognizable offence. These replace Section 2(c) and Section 2(l) of the old CrPC, 1973. The actual classification of each offence appears in the BNSS First Schedule.
Did the BNS change the definition compared to the IPC and CrPC?
The substance of the cognizable/non-cognizable distinction is the same; what changed are the section numbers and the home statute. The definitions moved from the CrPC to the BNSS, and the offence sections moved from the IPC to the BNS. A few genuinely new rules, such as the Section 173(3) preliminary enquiry, were added.
What is the main difference between cognizable and non-cognizable offences?
In a cognizable offence the police can act immediately, registering an FIR, investigating, and arresting without a warrant. In a non-cognizable offence the police cannot arrest without a warrant or investigate without a magistrate’s order. The dividing test is whether the police can arrest without a warrant.
Is a cognizable offence always non-bailable?
No. Cognizable and bailable are independent classifications in the First Schedule. A cognizable offence can be bailable or non-bailable depending on the specific offence, and non-cognizable offences are usually bailable. The arrest-without-warrant power does not decide the bail question.
What is the punishment threshold that separates the two categories?
There is no single hard threshold, but punishment of three years or more is the rough line, especially for offences under special laws, where three years or more tends to make an offence cognizable. The three-to-seven-year band is also significant because it triggers the Section 173(3) preliminary enquiry option. For BNS offences, you must still confirm against the First Schedule.
Is registering an FIR mandatory for a cognizable offence?
Yes. Under Section 173(1) of the BNSS, the police must register an FIR when the information discloses a cognizable offence, a rule rooted in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh. The only exception is the Section 173(3) preliminary enquiry for offences punishable with three to seven years, which can precede registration.
Can I file an e-FIR online under the BNSS?
Yes. Section 173(1) allows information about a cognizable offence to be given by electronic communication. An e-FIR must be signed by the informant within three days to be taken on record. The BNSS also gives statutory recognition to the Zero FIR, which can be filed at any police station regardless of jurisdiction.
What is the Section 173(3) preliminary enquiry?
Section 173(3) of the BNSS allows the police, for a cognizable offence punishable with three to seven years, to conduct a preliminary enquiry within fourteen days, with the prior approval of an officer of at least Deputy Superintendent of Police rank, before registering an FIR. It is meant to filter frivolous complaints. The Supreme Court first interpreted it in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025).
Do the police need a magistrate’s permission to investigate a non-cognizable offence?
Yes. Under Section 174 of the BNSS, the police cannot investigate a non-cognizable offence without an order from a magistrate empowered to try the case. They first record the information in the station diary and refer the informant to the magistrate. Once the order is granted, the police can investigate, but still cannot arrest without a warrant.
Can the police arrest without a warrant for a cognizable offence?
Yes, that arrest-without-warrant power is the defining feature of a cognizable offence. However, the power is not unlimited: Section 35 of the BNSS and the Arnesh Kumar guidelines require the police to justify the necessity of arrest, especially for offences punishable with less than seven years. Arrest should be the exception, not the reflex.
What can I do if the police refuse to register my FIR?
If the police refuse to register an FIR for a cognizable offence, you can send the substance of your information in writing to the Superintendent of Police, and you can approach a magistrate, who may direct an investigation under Section 175(3) of the BNSS. Refusal to register an FIR for a disclosed cognizable offence is itself unlawful under the Lalita Kumari principle.
Is murder a cognizable offence, and what is its BNS section?
Yes, murder is a cognizable and non-bailable offence, triable by the Court of Session. It is defined in Section 103 of the BNS, 2023, which replaces Section 302 of the old IPC. The police can register an FIR and investigate without a magistrate’s order.
Is defamation cognizable or non-cognizable?
Defamation, defined in Section 356 of the BNS, is a non-cognizable, bailable, and compoundable offence. This means the police cannot arrest without a warrant or investigate without a magistrate’s order, and it is typically pursued as a complaint before the magistrate rather than through an FIR.
Can a non-cognizable offence ever be treated as cognizable?
Yes. Under Section 174(4) of the BNSS, when a single case involves two or more offences and at least one of them is cognizable, the whole case is treated as cognizable. This unlocks the full police machinery, including investigation without a magistrate’s prior order, for the entire case.
References
Case Law
- Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1. Constitution Bench; mandatory registration of FIR for cognizable offences.
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 (AIR 1992 SC 604); seven categories for quashing an FIR or criminal proceeding.
- Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. Arrest in offences punishable below seven years must satisfy a necessity test.
- Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 INSC 410. First interpretation of the Section 173(3) BNSS preliminary enquiry.
Statutes
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Sections cited: 64, 103, 105, 109, 115, 117, 131, 137, 140, 270, 303, 309, 310, 316, 318, 356.
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Sections cited: 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o), 35, 173, 173(3), 174, 174(4), 175, 175(3), 176(3), 193; and the First Schedule (Classification of Offences).
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance, consult a qualified legal professional.
{
“@context”: “https://schema.org”,
“@type”: “Article”,
“headline”: “Cognizable vs Non-Cognizable Offences Under BNS (2026)”,
“description”: “Cognizable vs non-cognizable offences under the BNS and BNSS, explained: definitions, Section 173 FIR procedure, the BNSS First Schedule, examples and 2025 case law.”,
“author”: {
“@type”: “Organization”,
“name”: “iPleaders”,
“url”: “https://blog.ipleaders.in”
},
“publisher”: {
“@type”: “Organization”,
“name”: “iPleaders”,
“logo”: {
“@type”: “ImageObject”,
“url”: “https://blog.ipleaders.in/logo.png”
}
},
“datePublished”: “2026-06-18”,
“dateModified”: “2026-06-18”,
“mainEntityOfPage”: {
“@type”: “WebPage”,
“@id”: “https://blog.ipleaders.in/cognizable-non-cognizable-offences-bns/”
},
“image”: “https://blog.ipleaders.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/cognizable-non-cognizable-offences-bns.png”,
“citation”: [
{
“@type”: “CreativeWork”,
“name”: “Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh”,
“identifier”: “(2014) 2 SCC 1”,
“url”: “https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10239019/”,
“datePublished”: “2013-11-12”
},
{
“@type”: “CreativeWork”,
“name”: “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal”,
“identifier”: “1992 Supp (1) SCC 335”,
“url”: “https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1033637/”,
“datePublished”: “1990-11-21”
},
{
“@type”: “CreativeWork”,
“name”: “Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar”,
“identifier”: “(2014) 8 SCC 273”,
“url”: “https://indiankanoon.org/doc/2982624/”,
“datePublished”: “2014-07-02”
},
{
“@type”: “CreativeWork”,
“name”: “Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat”,
“identifier”: “2025 INSC 410”,
“url”: “https://indiankanoon.org/doc/118192392/”,
“datePublished”: “2025-03-28”
},
{
“@type”: “Legislation”,
“name”: “Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023”,
“identifier”: “Act No. 45 of 2023”,
“url”: “https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/250883_english_01042024.pdf”,
“legislationJurisdiction”: “IN”
},
{
“@type”: “Legislation”,
“name”: “Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023”,
“identifier”: “Act No. 46 of 2023”,
“url”: “https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/2024-04/250884_2_english_01042024.pdf”,
“legislationJurisdiction”: “IN”
}
]
}
